Blair: victim of the myth of leadership

Polly expresses a widespread view about Blair - that his reputation has been destroyed by Iraq.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that this is true. No-one's pointed out an implication of this - that Blair has been the victim of the myth of leadership.
In theory, he need not have become identified with Iraq. He could have taken the view in 2002-03 that he had no mandate for war and that, war being a public good (or bad), it was a suitable subject for a referendum. Had he held such a referendum - and campaigned on the grounds "I reckon there's a decent case: what do you think?" - he would not now be discredited by the (perceived) failure of the Iraq  policy.
He never did this, because he believed in the need for "strong leadership", rather than in full democracy.
But this belief is pernicious, and not just to Blair's reputation:
1. The notion that there are special individuals with superior insight and inspirational skills is an exaggeration. Such people do exist, but they are rare, and it's foolish to assume that they'll be around - and identifiable in advance - just when you need them.
2. Central authorities do not necessarily have more knowledge than dispersed crowds. We don't need inquiries into "intelligence failures" to tell us this. Hayek pointed it out decades ago.
3. "Leadership" drains people of energy and initiative by fostering the expectation that leaders can solve their problems: Jeffrey Nielsen describes how in this book. There's something inconsistent about New Labour's stress upon responsiblities and empowerment on the one hand, and its acquiescence in the leadership myth on the other. 
However - and this is why I say he is a victim - Blair was by no means alone in believing in the leadership myth. Pretty much everyone else does. The vast majority of those who criticize his Iraq policy do so not because they wanted a referendum, but because they wanted him to be like Chirac, and lead opposition to it - but this is leadership all the same.
Blair's "tragedy", then, has been to be trapped into a myth; "leaders" can be enslaved as much as followers.
More tragic still, he'll not be the last to be so trapped.

Comments

[Sam H]

Even if he had called a referendum, he would still have his reputation destroyed by Iraq because in order to win the referendum he would have had to tell more lies than he did anyway.

[Thom]

This is the real issue with the Labour government of the last 10 years - rather than acting as a representative body with a mandate for specific and clear actions, they have acted with condescention and a 'we know best' attitude which is directly at odds with the goals of representative democracy.

I doubt any of the voters who put them in power in 97 were imagining it would end with DNA swapping for suspects and cctv cameras which shout at you for dropping litter.

[galileo]

How are we to get the policies advocated in 'Against Achievability' if we do away with 'leadership'? Are we to rely on the wisdom of crowds?

[Henri Addams]

Hey, you might be interested in another oped piece written by Nielsen apropos of your great essay at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jeffrey__070614_leaders_can_t_save_d.htm

We need a return to genuine democracy!

[blitteLoola]

No matter what I eat I cant [url=http://carisoprodol-mexico.stanley-super-store.com] get some weight[/url]! I know every one is trying to >>>>>>>>>